Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.–These appeals stem from the judgment dated July 9, 2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 29/2000, whereby 14 accused were convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused Angrej Singh @ Charan Singh: U/S. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for three months U/S. 148 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. U/S. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for one month. U/S. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for two months. Accused (1) Durga Singh, (2) Babu Lal (3) Ranveer Singh, (4) Vikas Sethi, (5) Dholiya, (6)Virendra Singh, (7) Balla Ram, (8) Bhanwar Lal, (9) Har Lal, (10) Kuldeep Singh, (11) Ram Singh, (12) Pyare Lal and (13) Shimbhu Dayal: U/S. 148 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. U/S. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for one month. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The impugned judgment of learned trial judge has been assailed by the accused appellant Angrej Singh and other 13 accused appellants in Appeals No. 414/2001 and 396/2001. The State of Rajasthan also called in question the said judgment in Appeal No. 86/2001 and prayed to convict the accused Angrej Singh under Section 364 IPC and other 13 accused under Sections 302/149 and 364 IPC. (3). The prosecution case as pictured during trial was that on June 10, 2000 around 3.00 AM the employees of liquor contractors, who were petrolling in three jeeps, opened fire at Sri chand (now deceased) and abducted him. The incident had been witnessed by one Om Prakash,who rushed to the Petrol pump of Rameshwar, the maternal uncle of Srichand, and informed him about the occurrence. Rameshwar then telephonically communicated the information to Police Station Sadar Sikar. On arrival of SHO at the Petrol pump Rasidpura, Rameshwar handed over written report. Case under section 147, 149 and 364 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Police party along with Rameshwar and Om Prakash proceeded in search of Srichand in a jeep. Rameshwar then telephonically communicated the information to Police Station Sadar Sikar. On arrival of SHO at the Petrol pump Rasidpura, Rameshwar handed over written report. Case under section 147, 149 and 364 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Police party along with Rameshwar and Om Prakash proceeded in search of Srichand in a jeep. Some three miles away of Railway crossing Goriya they saw four jeeps when they reached near the jeep they found dead body of Srichand lying by the conductor side of jeep No. RJ 23 G 919. The dead body got recovered, accused were arrested, necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar, Charges under Sections 148, 364, 302, 302/149 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. Accused Angrej Singh stated that he was not arrested from the place of incident and cartridge and revolver were not recovered from his possession. No witness in defence was however examined. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. (4). We have carefully gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and heard the rival submissions. (5). A look at the postmortem report (Ex. P. 39) shows that the deceased received following ante mortem injuries:- ``There are 15 to 20 tiny ovular black abrasion present on Rt. cheek sub mandibular area and Rt. side neck. There is penetrating ovular would about 1 x 1 cm x muscle deep. In the wound, piece of cartridge is embedded. The wound is on Rt.side neck below rams of Rt. Mandible. The wound is caused by fire arm. In the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury to Rt. Side neck vessels due to fire arm. (6). Coming to the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution we notice that the informant Rameshwar (PW. 1) was not the eye witness of the occurrence. Mandible. The wound is caused by fire arm. In the opinion of Doctor the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury to Rt. Side neck vessels due to fire arm. (6). Coming to the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution we notice that the informant Rameshwar (PW. 1) was not the eye witness of the occurrence. In his deposition Rameshwar stated that on June 10, 2000 at 2.00 AM his nephew Srichand along with four other persons came in a jeep No. RJ 23G/919 at his Rasidpura Petrol pump. Out of four persons two were Sri Ram and Viru Bijarnia, Srichand told the informant that he was going to his village. The informant further stated that at 3.00 AM om Prakash came to the petrol pump and told him that raid party of liquor contractor abducted Srichand and one Angrej Singh opened fire at him. Om Prakash disclosed jeep numbers and the names of members of the raid-party. The informant further stated that he submitted written report to the SHO at Rasidpura, thereafter the SHO took the informant and Om Prakash in the vehicle and proceeded to search Srichand. Some three four miles away of Railway crossing Goriya, they saw four jeeps. Police surrounded the jeeps. Dead body of Srichand was lying by the side of Conductor in Jeep No. RJ 23G/919. As many as 14 persons were present there. Angrej Singh was possessing revolver and belt of bullets. (7). Baldeva Ram (PW. 2), father of the deceased deposed that on the day of incident he was serving at village Losal and around 9- 10 AM in the morning he received message of Srichands death on telephone. Veeru (PW. 4) and Phool Chand (PW. 5) did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Ratan Lal (PW. 9) deposed that at the instance of accused Angrej Sigh empty of 12 bore got recovered from jeep No. RJ 23C/3609. Sri Ram (PW. 10) in his deposition stated that while he was going in the jeep with Srichand on June 10, 2000 just 3 kilometers ahead of village Badadhar he saw another jeep standing on the road. Seeing that jeep Srichand took U-turn, suddenly somebody opened fire that hit Srichand and also caused injury on the face of Sri Ram. Injuries sustained by Sri Ram got medically examined at S.K. Hospital Sikar. Seeing that jeep Srichand took U-turn, suddenly somebody opened fire that hit Srichand and also caused injury on the face of Sri Ram. Injuries sustained by Sri Ram got medically examined at S.K. Hospital Sikar. Since Sri Ram did not name the person who opened fire, he was declared hostile. (8). Om Prakash (PW. 16) deposed that on June 10, 2000 around 2.30 AM while he was going from Rasidpura to Savloda in his jeep RJI 5445, he saw 15-20 persons standing near three jeeps, belonging to liquor contractors of Sikar and Laxmangarh. They checked his jeep and allowed him to proceed. He them stayed to attend the call of nature. In the meanwhile Srichand also came in his jeep, four persons were sitting in the jeep, out of which two were Sri Ram and Veeru. When Jeep of Srichand was being checked, Srichand started his jeep. Suddenly Angrej Singh opened fire and Srichand along with his jeep was taken towards village Badadhar. Om Prakash then turned his jeep towards the petrol pump of Rameshwar, the maternal uncle of Srichand, and informed him about the incident. Rameshwar then gave telephonic message to Police Station Sadar. Om Prakash named Angrej Singh, Durga Singh, Dholiya, Babu Lal, Balram, Vikas, Virendra, Ranvir, Harlal and Bhanwarlal. (9). We thus find that Sri Ram (PW. 10) and Om Prakash (PW. 16) are the only witnesses who throw some light on the incident, Sri Ram did not to the prosecution case and was declared hostile Sri Ram however corroborated this fact that he was sitting in the jeep when Srichand just 3 kilometers ahead of village Badadhar. He saw another jeep standing on the road. Seeing the jeep when Srichand took U-turn, suddenly some one opened fire that hit Srichand and Sri Ram. The witness Om Prakash, who was a casual passer by, deposed that he saw Angrej Singh opened fire and members of raid party of liquor contractor of Sikar and Laxmangarh abducted Srichand. Looking to the fact Om Prakash is a chance witness, we have to judge his testimony by applying the well recognised test of basic human probabilities. The evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution, keeping in mind that the easy tendency is more often discernible in involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as having been seen in the malee. The evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution, keeping in mind that the easy tendency is more often discernible in involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible by merely naming them as having been seen in the malee. In assessing the value of the evidence of an eye witness, the principle considerations are:- (i) Whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them; and (ii) Whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. (10). Having carefully scanned the testimony of Sri Ram (PW. 10) and Om Prakash (PW. 16) we find that it was the accused Angrej Singh who opened fire and took Srichand towards Badadhar in the jeep. From the evidence of informant Rameshwar (PW.1) it is established Srichand came to him in jeep No. RJ 23G/919 and his dead body was found in the said jeep. It is contended on behalf of the accused Angrej Singh that Om Prakash (PW. 16) failed to identify Angrej Singh in the Court, therefore the testimony of Om Prakash could not have been read against the accused Angrej Singh. We are not impressed by this contention. Nabisher Khan (PW. 17) got arrested Angrej Singh just after one hour and thirty minutes of the incident and recovered revolver and 8 live bullets from his possession. Arrest memo was exhibited by Nabisher Khan in the court and no question in cross examination in regard to arrest memo was asked from Nabisher Khan Recovery memo (Ex. P. 35) and FSL report (Ex. P. 48) corroborated the testimony of Nabisher Khan and we find no infirmity in the testimony of Nabisher Khan. (11). From the testimony of Om Prakash (PW. 16) it is established that Angrej Singh opened fire and abducted Srichand along with his jeep. It is also established that from the testimony of Rameshwar (PW. 1) and Om Prakash (PW. 16) that the dead body of Srichand was found in the jeep RJ23G/919. The evidence adduced by the prosecution qua accused Angrej Singh is clear, unambiguous and in unmistakable terms establish that Angrej Singh the perpetrator of the crime. It is also established that from the testimony of Rameshwar (PW. 1) and Om Prakash (PW. 16) that the dead body of Srichand was found in the jeep RJ23G/919. The evidence adduced by the prosecution qua accused Angrej Singh is clear, unambiguous and in unmistakable terms establish that Angrej Singh the perpetrator of the crime. Since Angrej Singh opened fire and abducted Srichand a presumption can be drawn that Angrej Singh himself could be the killer of Srichand, as is held by the Apex Court in State of West Bangal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (2000) 8 SCC 382 , that the court would be justified in appropriate cases to draw the presumption that the abductor himself could be the killer of the abducted victim, unless he explain otherwise as to what he did with the prey. Interpreting the principle in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of West Bangal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (supra) indicated thus:- (12). In Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 361) = (RLW 2001(2) SC 345), the Honble Supreme Court in para 20 observed as under:- ``We only reiterate the legal principle adumbrated in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (supra), that when more persons then one have abducted the victim, who was late murdered, it is within the legal province of the court to justifiably draw a presumption depending on the factual situation, that all the abductors are responsible for the murder. Section 34 IPC of the IPC could be invoked for the aid to that end, unless any particular abductor satisfies the court with his explanation as to what else he did with the victim subsequently, i.e. whether he left his associates en-route or whether he dissuaded others from doing the extreme act etc. etc. Their Lordships further indicated that ``the abductors alone could tell the court as to what happened to the deceased after they were abducted. When the abductors withheld that information from the court there is every jurisdiction for drawing the inference in the light of all the preceding and succeeding circumstances adverted to above, that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased. (13). When the abductors withheld that information from the court there is every jurisdiction for drawing the inference in the light of all the preceding and succeeding circumstances adverted to above, that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased. (13). Undoubtedly it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act do not intend to relieve the prosecution of its burden, but Section 106 would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference. (14). In the case on hand, the facts which the prosecution proved, when considered in the light of the proximity of time within which Srichand sustained injury and the proximity of the place within which the dead body was found are enough to draw an inference that Srichands death was caused by the accused Angrej Singh who was the abductor. If any deviation from the aforesaid course would have been factually correct only the said abductor would know about it, because such deviation would have been especially within his knowledge. As Angrej Singh declined to state such facts, the inference would stand undisturbed. Angrej Singh alone could tell the court as to what happened to Srichand after he was abducted by him. As Angrej Singh withheld that information from the court there is every justification from drawing the inference, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that he is the murderer of the deceased Srichand. (15). The evidence led on behalf of the prosecution against other accused (1) Durga Singh, (2) Babu Lal (3) Ranveer Singh, (4) Vikas Sethi, (5) Dholiya, (6)Virendra Singh, (7) Balla Ram, (8) Bhanwar Lal, (9) Har Lal, (10) Kuldeep Singh, (11) Ram Singh, (12) Pyare Lal and (13) Shimbhu Dayal is wholly unsatisfactory and cannot be regarded sufficient to find conviction of these accused. It is difficult to believe that these accused were present at the spot when the police arrived at. It is also difficult to believe that they were arrested from the place of occurrence. It is difficult to believe that these accused were present at the spot when the police arrived at. It is also difficult to believe that they were arrested from the place of occurrence. We find no merit in the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that these accused persons were guilty of committing the offence under Sections 364 and 302/149 IPC. We however agree with the submission that Angrej Singh was guilty of having committed the offence under Section 364 IPC. (16). As a result of foregoing discussion we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms:- (i) Appeal of State of Rajasthan hearing No. 86/2002 is partly allowed and accused Angrej Singh is convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The appeal against rest of the accused stands dismissed. (ii) Appeal of accused Durga Singh & Others bearing No. 396/2001 is allowed and the accused (1) Durga Singh, (2) Babu Lal (3) Ranveer Singh, (4) Vikas Sethi, (5) Dholiya, (6)Virendra Singh, (7) Balla Ram, (8) Bhanwar Lal, (9) Har Lal, (10) Kuldeep Singh, (11) Ram Singh, (12) Pyare Lal and (13) Shimbhu Dayal stand acquitted of the charge under Sections 148 and 201 IPC. All these accused are on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (iii) Appeal of Angrej Singh stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence of accused Angrej Singh under Sections 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act stand confirmed. He is however acquitted of the charge under sections 148 and 201 IPC. Accused Angrej Singh is also convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten ears and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Susbstantive sentences shall run concurrently. (iv) The impugned judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above.